Originally Posted by Green Scape
Of the two, who's side are you on? If it's neither, why waste your time posting in this thread proving a point that they both happened to stereotype, they both are oppinionated, and they both think they know about the sport.
I waste my time because there are people here that believe otherwise, in spite of the observable truth. Some of them might be willing to open their eyes, in spite of a fear of what they might see.
WHO is in the wrong, both of them?
At this point, just the blogger, although I'm open to anyone who wants to point out specifics about the original article.
I think the blogger is justified in his response,
Of course you do; you agree with him.
I don't see any journalists typing neat air tight logical articles that magically take both sides of an argument.
You're clearly not looking.
From the Edge of Madness to Fighting’s Mainstream - New York Times
Give the blogger a break, just because Jasvl doesn't agree with how it was handled doesn't mean it's not a positive step on letting uninformed journalists know where they stand to an actual MMA fan, not the "watchers" or your "typical mma fan" which the blogger refers to, notice he didn't have to type "typical" in front of mma fan.
It doesn't mean it is a positive step, either.
You don't think supporting the technique, styles, and appreciating the work of a mixed martial artist is a universal truth? For someone as logical as you, I wouldn't think you'd have a hard time understanding what the blogger is trying to prove here. But then again, maybe the journalists is correct with his ASSUMPTIONS of MMA.
You're ignoring the content of the blog for the sake of the ideology.
Are we typical UFC fans? Sh*t I don't like them either.
Then why are you and the blogger giving the article's author such a hard time? You both agree with him.
Another imperfection, sorry the blogger let one slip in to a journalist who uses the same method. Maybe he was trying to get his perspective across by relating to the journalist's style, or maybe he was overcome by emotion from all the MMA slander that's been going on. An emotional blogger? Oh no! Sorry it wasn't reduced to a pure logic concept to satisfy you.
Rationalization for the sake of an ideology. Why won't you go to the same lengths to justify the original author's 'imperfections?' Oh, that's right, you happen to disagree with him.
What's the journalist's actual oppinion based on? The sport of MMA?
As the author clearly states, his opinion was initially based on stereotypes from the early days of UFC, now it's based on witnessing the Liddell/Jackson fight in a bar. He made it clear that his opinion was his own and made no derogatory statements about the sport itself. He simply wasn't entertained by what he saw. For that he's being crucified.
Don't you think his oppinion would be different if he understood MMA, and didn't base his oppinions on media and "typical ufc fans".
He didn't do either, so I'm not sure how to answer this one. I get the feeling this guy could study MMA for a lifetime and still not like it. Remember, he doesn't like boxing, either.
I won't say that pistachio ice cream tastes like sh*t, because I've never tasted it.
You'll notice that the article's author didn't comment on UFC until he tasted it.
Like I said earlier, the blogger IS justified in his response, the journalist wrote a bad misleading article, the blogger responded.
No, he didn't. He simply wrote an article stating why he thinks MMA is destined to remain on the fringe of mainstream along with boxing and gave his reasons why.
It may have not been as perfect as you would've liked it to be, but I'm not going to second guess or question this kid's oppinion because Jasvl didn't agree with how he handled it.
You'll notice I never asked you to. I simply pointed out the obvious. If you still want to ignore it, fine, but it makes you no different than the people you're flailing your arms at. The only difference is which side of the fence you're looking at.